Inside The HPSCI Memo – A Key Distinction Being Conflated “Title I” -vs- “Title VII”…
There is a key distinction being overlooked, perhaps conflated, by many who are reviewing the recently released HPSCI memo as it relates to the outlined targeting of U.S. individual Carter Page.
In the HPSCI outline it specifically notes the targeting of U.S. individual Carter Page was NOT a FISA Title VII search request. Title VII is FISA(702), the incidental collection of U.S. person information as it relates to National Security or Counterintelligence operations targeting foreign individuals.
The FISA ‘warrant’ request, against Carter Page, was made October 21st, 2016, under Title I of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Meaning the surveillance application was specifically stating, to the court, the U.S. individual was likely an actual agent of a foreign government, ie. “a spy.”
The DOJ (National Security Division) and the FBI (Counterintelligence Division) were not asking to review ancillary data collected on U.S. Person Carter Page as an outcome of surveillance on a foreign person, or foreign agent; that would be Title 7 (FISA-702).
In action outlined within the HPSCI memo, the DOJ and FBI were specifically telling the FISA court they had evidence that U.S. Person Carter Page was working as an agent of a foreign government. He was their target, and therefore requesting direct FISA Title 1 surveillance of that target on October 21st, 2016.
To give validity to the underlying position of the DOJ and FBI, the justice department used: the Clinton-Steele Dossier; media reports from -and of- the Clinton-Steele dossier; and opposition research provided by Clinton financed Fusion-GPS through Nellie Ohr, so they could monitor U.S. Person Carter Page.
In total, this sketchy assembly of political campaign research was used by the FBI as evidence to back-up their claim U.S. person Carter Page was working as a foreign agent; essentially saying: he was a spy. This application assembly was then certified on four different occasions by specific officials within the DOJ and FBI.
Without knowing the court had been provided political research, the FISA Court granted the FBI full surveillance authority for U.S. Person Carter Page. The distinction is rather stark.
The FBI were not targeting Page incidentally as an outcome of foreign intelligence collection; the FBI was targeting Carter Page directly. AND as such they carried full surveillance authority upon all of this activities, interactions, communications and contacts therein.
Because of this direct approach, any group, organization or entity who came in contact with U.S. Person Carter Page was then open for ancillary review and FBI investigation. Those who engaged in contact with Carter Page became subject to surveillance and searches in the same manner as if Page was an actual foreign agent.
Legal commentary thread on #Memo by Robert Barnes:
It is important to remember that FISA courts are not like other courts; there needs to be specific evidence of a particular national security threat to circumvent regular federal courts.
It is a HIGHER standard because its jurisdiction is LIMITED
FISA courts have LIMITED jurisdiction because the scope of the invasive tools of the NSA is far more INVASIVE than regular wiretaps, due to the SECRET nature of such courts, and from the risk of forum shopping with the limited number and deferential nature of FISA Judges.
That is why Congress imposed SPECIAL RESTRICTIONS on access to FISA courts and use of FISA evidence. To access FISA courts, only the highest ranking FBI officials must vet and approve, a high ranking DOJ official must authorize, and they must re-vet and re-approve every 90 days.
To spy on Americans through a FISA court, the FBI must show the target is an “agent of a foreign power,” not merely in contact with a foreign power. The law makes it difficult to show someone is an “agent of a foreign power” to make sure it is not misused to spy on Americans.
The law does not allow the FBI to call an American an “agent of a foreign power” unless they can show the person “knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power” AND the nature of their activity is criminalized.
Claiming someone is an “agent of a foreign power” is a difficult standard to ever show, and should never happen to a domestic political opponent in a domestic political campaign. That is why the FBI had to cook the books — put a bogus informant on their team & lie to the courts.
Trump’s winning caused a problem for Comey & Comey’s firing caused a problem for Rosenstein. Both Comey & Rosenstein signed off on the bogus affidavits to the FISA court to continue spying on Trump team members post-election and post-inauguration. They needed Mueller to cover up.
Key fact about Mueller: he is very close friends with Comey, and was the mentor and close friend of Rosenstein. Mueller is also expert at covering up for lawless law enforcement: see his role with Whitey Bulger, BCCI, HSBC, Waco, Noriega, IRS/Tea Party & Fast & Furious.
FISA law protects Americans from lawless spying by masking & deletion of intercepted data. If an American’s conversations are intercepted, his identity must remain hidden, and if no p/c of a crime, his conversations deleted. Hence, the importance of @Cernovich Susan Rice story.
FBI turned over their NSA spying capacity to a private lobbying company in order to promote a smear campaign against a domestic political opponent. Fearing being caught, they appointed a special counsel (Mueller) to cover for them by accusing the man (Trump) who might expose them (link)
Here’s the HPSCI Point and Counterpoint as released earlier:
FISA Memo Charge and Response
View this document on Scribd
No comments:
Post a Comment